To counter inflation, instead of raising the price of vegetables and fruits, government doesn't taxes cigarettes and liquor.(many) People are already addicted to it. This would balance the revenue deficit without affecting the poor that much?

At 12/25/2010 2:47:55 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:A good way to counter inflation would be to raise interest rates and to stop using the power of fiat to generate currency from nothing.

But that would also check investments by entrepreneurs. Wouldn't it? Which would lower the GDP.

Consumer spending would probably be lower, yeah. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially considering that irrational and irresponsible spending by consumers deserves a pretty large share of the blame for recessions and depressions.

Secondly, you can still have productive investment spending without massive levels of inflation. In fact, a stable money supply is probably more conducive to investment and the creation of wealth than quasi-random manipulation of the money supply and interest rates.

Thirdly, it's also important to note that a high GDP isn't always good, and is actually pretty destructive when it's pursued without regard for the means employed. Note, for example, that government spending is part of the GDP equation. We could marginalize consumer and investment spending while at the same time maximizing the tax rate and government spending. This would produce a rather large GDP; however, a country run almost entirely through a state budget is far from economically healthy. Naturally, such a situation isn't likely to occur, but it demonstrates my point, that high GDP isn't always necessarily an accurate indicator of macroeconomic health. Ultimately, I don't even believe that economic growth ought to be our goal--it ought to be sustainability. I say that because economic growth isn't categorically necessary for the standard of living and quality of life to improve.

Really, you have to think about what the purpose of economics is--from the purpose, everything else starts to fall into place.

At 12/25/2010 3:29:46 AM, Tidin wrote:To counter inflation we should adopt sound currency back by something, other than the government's word.

Let's be realistic, here. The government may have de jure authority to ascribe value to fiat currency, but the de facto economic reality is that, though the government legitimizes currency, its value comes from the acknowledgment of the people who use it as a medium of exchange.

At 12/25/2010 3:29:46 AM, Tidin wrote:To counter inflation we should adopt sound currency back by something, other than the government's word.

Let's be realistic, here. The government may have de jure authority to ascribe value to fiat currency, but the de facto economic reality is that, though the government legitimizes currency, its value comes from the acknowledgment of the people who use it as a medium of exchange.

I am not talking about "its value", I am talking about state granted legal tender. You be realistic, the only way the to counter inflation is to adopt a market currency, whereas money only transpires from the market.

At 12/25/2010 3:29:46 AM, Tidin wrote:To counter inflation we should adopt sound currency back by something, other than the government's word.

Let's be realistic, here. The government may have de jure authority to ascribe value to fiat currency, but the de facto economic reality is that, though the government legitimizes currency, its value comes from the acknowledgment of the people who use it as a medium of exchange.

I am not talking about "its value", I am talking about state granted legal tender. You be realistic, the only way the to counter inflation is to adopt a market currency, whereas money only transpires from the market.

1. When currency isn't backed by a state, foreign powers have a hard time accepting it, which leads to further problems when it comes time to deal with imports and exports.

2. Adopting a market currency isn't "the only way to counter inflation". If that was true, the United States would never have undergone a single period of deflation in its entire history. Like I said, reducing the money supply and normalizing interest rates should do alright in dealing with excessive inflation.

3. You obviously are talking about "its value", since you specifically propose that we get a "sound currency", which is an implicit criticism of the system of ascription of value to the American Dollar.

4. Saying that we should have currency that "only transpires from the market" doesn't make any sense. Freely-generated currency tends, realistically, to devolve into undesirable economic situations, like bartering (which, keep in mind, is an awful way to try and run a large-scale economy) and cases like the Confederacy, where the multitude of autonomously-created currencies, though sort of useful for local markets, were basically worthless when they crossed borders.

We might also question how large the impact on the economy will be as a result of reducing inflation to more stable levels. Excessive inflation rates are obviously detrimental to macroeconomic health, sure; however, I would ask whether you suggest anything more than controlling inflation to restore economic health and nudge us toward sustainability. Personally, I think we need to see two changes, one being in the way that consumers and producers act, and the other being the way that they interact.

At 12/25/2010 4:38:43 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:4. Saying that we should have currency that "only transpires from the market" doesn't make any sense. Freely-generated currency tends, realistically, to devolve into undesirable economic situations, like bartering (which, keep in mind, is an awful way to try and run a large-scale economy).

1. When currency isn't backed by a state, foreign powers have a hard time accepting it, which leads to further problems when it comes time to deal with imports and exports.

First, who says the market currency is not backed, in terms of acceptance, by the state?Second, market back currency is more reliable/stable than an IOU by the government.Third, (for fun) sources...

2. Adopting a market currency isn't "the only way to counter inflation". If that was true, the United States would never have undergone a single period of deflation in its entire history. Like I said, reducing the money supply and normalizing interest rates should do alright in dealing with excessive inflation.

Poor word choice on my behalf. I will correct by using the word, best. Nonetheless, what you propose does not work.<insert inflationary graph from the past 110 years here>

3. You obviously are talking about "its value", since you specifically propose that we get a "sound currency", which is an implicit criticism of the system of ascription of value to the American Dollar.

Sigh... I wish I could ignore the real issue too (government ascribed legal tenders). Money comes from the acknowledgment of the people who use it as a medium of exchange, not its value. The value of money derives from people having a higher marginal utility for the money units than for the other. commodities. People expect that the units of money will have allow them to receive real goods and services in their future.

4. Saying that we should have currency that "only transpires from the market" doesn't make any sense. Freely-generated currency tends, realistically, to devolve into undesirable economic situations, like bartering (which, keep in mind, is an awful way to try and run a large-scale economy) and cases like the Confederacy, where the multitude of autonomously-created currencies, though sort of useful for local markets, were basically worthless when they crossed borders.

You don't even now what the free market currency would be. For example, there could be currencies based off (baskets) of sound commodities. Money spontaneously emerges from voluntary exchanges, not social decrees and mandates. If fiat collapsed, then other mediums of exchange would emerge with the market. Quit treating our paper dollars like it isn't just another commodity.

At 12/25/2010 4:38:43 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:2. Adopting a market currency isn't "the only way to counter inflation". If that was true, the United States would never have undergone a single period of deflation in its entire history. Like I said, reducing the money supply and normalizing interest rates should do alright in dealing with excessive inflation.

It may not be the *only* possible way, but most of the deflation that has taken place in the US was while we were under a gold standard. Fiat currencies are inherently unstable; governments are constantly under pressure to inflate whenever the economy needs a shot in the arm.

At 12/25/2010 2:28:33 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:To counter inflation, instead of raising the price of vegetables and fruits, government doesn't taxes cigarettes and liquor.(many) People are already addicted to it. This would balance the revenue deficit without affecting the poor that much

1. agricultural subsidies do not counter inflation.2. It does tax cigarettes and liquor (called sin taxes)3. It wouldn't balance the revenue deficit.

At 12/25/2010 2:47:55 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:A good way to counter inflation would be to raise interest rates and to stop using the power of fiat to generate currency from nothing.

But that would also check investments by entrepreneurs. Wouldn't it? Which would lower the GDP.

Consumer spending would probably be lower, yeah. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially considering that irrational and irresponsible spending by consumers deserves a pretty large share of the blame for recessions and depressions.

Secondly, you can still have productive investment spending without massive levels of inflation. In fact, a stable money supply is probably more conducive to investment and the creation of wealth than quasi-random manipulation of the money supply and interest rates.

But that stable money supply would have to be mighty large if one was to invest from it. Or if we were thinking about people storing some of the wealth to invest later, a lot of time and patience would be needed for that. In fact, in that case, only the really rich would be able to invest. Killing a lot of potential production. (assuming the increase in interest rates is too high, which would of course happen -given the state of inflation)

Thirdly, it's also important to note that a high GDP isn't always good, and is actually pretty destructive when it's pursued without regard for the means employed. Note, for example, that government spending is part of the GDP equation. We could marginalize consumer and investment spending while at the same time maximizing the tax rate and government spending. This would produce a rather large GDP; however, a country run almost entirely through a state budget is far from economically healthy. Naturally, such a situation isn't likely to occur, but it demonstrates my point, that high GDP isn't always necessarily an accurate indicator of macroeconomic health. Ultimately, I don't even believe that economic growth ought to be our goal--it ought to be sustainability. I say that because economic growth isn't categorically necessary for the standard of living and quality of life to improve.

Yeah, that makes sense but how exactly would it counter inflation if the rate of interest becomes too high. The step wouldn't be too productive then. Rate of interest can be increased upto a certain limit only.

Really, you have to think about what the purpose of economics is--from the purpose, everything else starts to fall into place.

At 12/25/2010 3:29:46 AM, Tidin wrote:To counter inflation we should adopt sound currency back by something, other than the government's word.

Let's be realistic, here. The government may have de jure authority to ascribe value to fiat currency, but the de facto economic reality is that, though the government legitimizes currency, its value comes from the acknowledgment of the people who use it as a medium of exchange.

It's value comes from supply and demand.

We determine the supply

The demand is determined by the GDP, ability to pay back the debt, and political stability of the country combined with the projected rate of inflation. Lowering the interest rate increases the supply and vice verca. Each country has a credit rating on the debt that influences the yield curve and affects the demand.

At 12/25/2010 2:28:33 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:To counter inflation, instead of raising the price of vegetables and fruits, government doesn't taxes cigarettes and liquor.(many) People are already addicted to it. This would balance the revenue deficit without affecting the poor that much

1. agricultural subsidies do not counter inflation.

If we subsidize something, we are basically helping the farmers.This increases the supply in the market which would increase its demand (because of lower price). Which would cause inflation. Please point out the fallacy in my assumption.

2. It does tax cigarettes and liquor (called sin taxes)

I know. But not as much as it can. In my state, liquor is still cheaper than onions (per kg). And we don't need liquor every day.

At 12/25/2010 4:38:43 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:4. Saying that we should have currency that "only transpires from the market" doesn't make any sense. Freely-generated currency tends, realistically, to devolve into undesirable economic situations, like bartering (which, keep in mind, is an awful way to try and run a large-scale economy).

I'm actually plenty of skeptical of Austrian economics these days, believe it or not.

And, right now, I'm not going to read 112 pages of Rothbard just to respond to this thread.

...and cases like the Confederacy, where the multitude of autonomously-created currencies, though sort of useful for local markets, were basically worthless when they crossed borders.

Those currencies were created by government fiat, same as the current system. The difference was, states issued the money rather than a federal government. They weren't chosen by the market at all.

I'm well aware of that. The point that I was making was that markets where currencies have to compete for dominance are really shitty. See: Zimbabwe. The market, honestly, isn't a conscious entity, and doesn't "choose" currencies, nor can we be sure that the choice it makes is even rational.

At 12/25/2010 5:43:45 AM, Tidin wrote:1. When currency isn't backed by a state, foreign powers have a hard time accepting it, which leads to further problems when it comes time to deal with imports and exports.

First, who says the market currency is not backed, in terms of acceptance, by the state?

You said that the currency "only transpires in the market". That generally means that the government isn't involved, especially given that laissez faire economists want the government entirely divorced from the economy.

Second, market back currency is more reliable/stable than an IOU by the government.

Example?

Third, (for fun) sources...

On my part? The political status quo is evidence enough. Governments and international lenders are put in the position of only trusting currency backed (and basically generated) by the power of sovereign states. Hell, the world reserve currency, as worthless as it's starting to become, only has the status that it does because it's the currency of the last remaining superpower (the rise of China notwithstanding).

2. Adopting a market currency isn't "the only way to counter inflation". If that was true, the United States would never have undergone a single period of deflation in its entire history. Like I said, reducing the money supply and normalizing interest rates should do alright in dealing with excessive inflation.

Poor word choice on my behalf. I will correct by using the word, best. Nonetheless, what you propose does not work.<insert inflationary graph from the past 110 years here>

What I propose doesn't work? So, doing things that counter inflation doesn't work in countering inflation? Aight. I don't think that you can legitimately appeal to US monetary policy when our policy is to artificially lower interest rates and print money when things get tough.

3. You obviously are talking about "its value", since you specifically propose that we get a "sound currency", which is an implicit criticism of the system of ascription of value to the American Dollar.

Money comes from the acknowledgment of the people who use it as a medium of exchange, not its value.

Disclaimer: this isn't an ad hominem, since I am not trying to validate an argument with a personal attack.

You're an idiot. You're acting like I'm arguing the exact opposite, when I said the exact same thing on the first page of this thread:

The government may have de jure authority to ascribe value to fiat currency, but the de facto economic reality is that, though the government legitimizes currency, its value comes from the acknowledgment of the people who use it as a medium of exchange.

I hope to goodness that you're just copying what I said back to me to be snide.

The value of money derives from people having a higher marginal utility for the money units than for the other. commodities. People expect that the units of money will have allow them to receive real goods and services in their future.

That, and the fact that A) money isn't a perishable commodity, which gives it better long-term value, and B) money normalizes transactions by providing a common, widely-available base of value against which hard commodities and services can be weighed. You could also use gold, barley, sexual favors, etc., but I'm not sure I would recommend it.

4. Saying that we should have currency that "only transpires from the market" doesn't make any sense. Freely-generated currency tends, realistically, to devolve into undesirable economic situations, like bartering (which, keep in mind, is an awful way to try and run a large-scale economy) and cases like the Confederacy, where the multitude of autonomously-created currencies, though sort of useful for local markets, were basically worthless when they crossed borders.

At 12/25/2010 4:38:43 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:2. Adopting a market currency isn't "the only way to counter inflation". If that was true, the United States would never have undergone a single period of deflation in its entire history. Like I said, reducing the money supply and normalizing interest rates should do alright in dealing with excessive inflation.

It may not be the *only* possible way, but most of the deflation that has taken place in the US was while we were under a gold standard. Fiat currencies are inherently unstable; governments are constantly under pressure to inflate whenever the economy needs a shot in the arm.

At 12/25/2010 7:35:08 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:If we subsidize something, we are basically helping the farmers.

Correct

This increases the supply in the market which would increase its demand (because of lower price).

Incorrect. It would increase the amount demanded however it would not change the demand. There is a difference. It would move things down the curve, not shift the curve.

Furthermore the government doesn't produce more of something when they subsidize it. They do one of the following:

1. Pay the farmers not to work (this artificially decreases the supply less farmers less goods - less supply higher price)

2. Buy the crops and give them to third world countries. (this artificially increases the demand and increases the price)

Agricultural subsidies in both cases do not benefit the consumer but the farmer. It is not a traditional subsidy that you are used to thinking. They both do not increase supply.

Which would cause inflation.

The artificial demand or price floor increases the price of crops. However to argue that the price of crops have a huge sway on the value of currency is ludicrous.

Furthermore you initially said that it would increase supply. If it increased supply (which it does not) it would cause the price to be lower. How would a lower price cause inflation? It would cause deflation if you had to argue anything.

Please point out the fallacy in my assumption.

I have done what you wished.

2. It does tax cigarettes and liquor (called sin taxes)

I know. But not as much as it can. In my state, liquor is still cheaper than onions (per kg). And we don't need liquor every day.

How would this fight inflation? How on earth would raising prices (taxing) alcohol and liquor fight inflation? It would help it not fight it.